雅思阅读搭配题的正确复习方法

雅思阅读搭配题的正确复习方法将搭配题这种题型分为3种情况，分别就每种情况进行了解题思路和方法的总结，帮助我们在备考阶段掌握正确的方法提高备考效率。下面小编就和大家分享，来欣赏一下吧。

雅思阅读搭配题的正确复习方法

雅思阅读搭配题的正确复习方法为大家带来雅思阅读在复习过程中，搭配题的复习和解题方法。搭配题在雅思阅读中算难点题型，它全名叫做段落信息搭配题，是一种需要阅读题干选项并指出文中哪一段包含了选项中的这些信息。因为涉及到大量的题干阅读审题和全文的阅读及信息获取，这种题时常让人读得头昏脑胀。

搭配题细分有三种。第一种是事实对应型，它是搭配题中的轻量级，简单易做，只要把有明显定位词的一方在原文中找到定位，另外的陈述部分划繁为简，找到关键词，在原文中定位好的地方查找，细心一点，就能拿到分数。

第二种为解释说明型，尤以人名和理论的搭配居多。解题方法如下：把人名简写，如 CHARLIE BROWN写成CB，然后借助扫读文章、定位其它题型答案的时候，把人名在文章中定位并做标注。细读理论的时候，不一定按顺序读，因为并不是第一个理论必然出现在文章第一处人名附近，这种题目原本也大多数为乱序。所以，你可以从你真正能读懂的理论(以备原文夸张的同义词转述)划出关键词，然后到原文中按顺序查找你定位好的人名处，去读引号里面或者宾语从句的内容。

这里有一个好建议：按文章顺序可以变成倒序。有时候为了增加题目难度，出题人喜欢把靠前的理论安排在文章靠后的段落，所以你不妨倒着读。但是，由于英文的引号为单引号，有时候两个引号不在同一行，不容易分辨，所以我建议倒顺读各段，一个段落中顺序读理论，这样就非常容易分辨出是什么人提出的什么理论了。更为重要的是，难懂的理论要暂时放弃，一定要学会舍，才能在最后有所得。有时，当你做出了其它题目后，这道原本看似难懂的题目可能会更加清晰。出题人一定会设置难题，但我们不能为了争8甚至8.5的题目，浪费了时间，连本属于我们7分之内应该拿到的题目都把握不住。

第三种搭配题称为段落加相关信息的搭配题，堪称搭配题中的重量级，也往往是引来考生抱怨声一片的题目。题中给出若干条信息，要求考生在原文中找到包含这些信息的段落。相对于其它题型，它的难度在于它不具顺序性;(搭配题很少按顺序出题，其它题型则很少不按顺序出题。)另外，它有变化较大的同义词转述。教学过程中发现很多考生可以读懂题目中的信息，也可以读懂文章大概，但是把它们搭配在一起就有困难。这体现了大多数考生的一个通病：能读懂英文，但不会理解。一个单词的理解不到位，就可能导致在细节题上无法得分。所以，平时在背单词的时候要特别注意单词的多重意思，力求能力上的提高。

如果考试日期迫在眉睫，而短期之内英语实力很难获得质的飞跃，考生也可以尝试这样做。这个题型的处理步骤，简言之，在读了文章题目后，从在信息中划出关键词入手，然后回到文章，精读段落主题句(通常在段落的第一句、第二句和最后一句)，并且扫读中间信息。读一个段落，扫读一遍信息，以找到信息中关键词的原词或同义转换词、形式进行过转变的词、或者高频词。力求文章扫完一遍，把能选出的信息选出。因为题目乱序，所以我们切记不可读一则信息，看一遍文章，那样文章看了N遍也有可能对不上信息。所谓阅读理解，其实只要明白文章60%以上的内容，就是理解，可一旦考查我们的同义词转述存在剩余下的读不懂的40%之内，就很难做出题目。所以，要想争取到更多的分数，遇到难题可以考虑信息本身不用读懂，只要把关键词划出来，尽量想出可能的同义转换，然后到文章中去碰一碰。“遇难千万别翻译，主题相关想替换”反而容易许多。

关键词能不能从信息中划得准确、划得全面、划得完整，就是解题的关键了。关键词应该优先划出比较独特的名词，比较独特的动词，偶尔可以划上使独特名词更加独特的形容词，而且，理解这些词的意思要基于文章话题，即选择词的意思要结合文章主题。题目中的关键词还会包括一些由于雅思文章刻板性所包含的和首末段相对应的词。例如，讲到introduction, overview, conception, cause, definition, initiation，往往应该在文章前面，甚至精确到首段;讲到conclusion, consequence, impact, effect, future, prospect就应该到文章后面找，直到末段。对信息中的一些特殊词也要特别敏感，例如，谈到时间、金钱、百分比，数字要毫不犹豫地划下来，这些关键词相比其它词更加简单好记，即使你把原文内容读得云里雾里，这些特殊词也能帮助你回原文定位涉及到的段落。

读到这里，来看看你是不是已经学会划关键词了。举个例子，在剑桥雅思四里有一篇剑桥系列里称得上“幽灵级”的题目，PLAY IS A SERIOUS BUSINESS里面就有这样的段落加相关信息的搭配题。详见剑四52页28题，题目中的信息为：insights from recording how much time young animals spend playing，多数同学都在第一时间划出insights这个独特名词，他们了解这个名词是“洞察力”的意思。但是如果你这样做，就等于限制住了自己的路，因为回到原文，在英语环境中，有多少考生知道insight的同义词或者同义解释呢?应为：the ability to understand and realize what people or situations are really like。如果不能，这个 insights就划得很失败，不如划一个我们能够明确把握的特殊词(组)：how much time, 无论这几个词在文章中如何变化，相信同学们一定会把它的变形找出来，这就是准确划出关键词的优势。又如第31题， the possible effects that a reduction in play opportunities will have on humans，这个信息中应该划出 possible effect。我们讲过，通常讲effect的内容会在文章靠后的位置，甚至末段，所以带着很强的目的性，只要看末段讲的是不是减少玩耍机会可能的影响就可以了。这么难的6个信息题中，只要稍加注意，至少可以做出一半。而对于保6.5争7的考生，这种难度的题目做对3-4个，就非常不错了。

最后，需要注意题目中有没有NB(拉丁文，“注意”)，有的话就是在提示我们：有的段落可能包含不止一个信息，而有的段落可能没有信息出现。如果那不止一个，最多几个呢?通常不会超过3个。如果这种题型上没有NB，题目稍微容易，找到信息的段落就不用再看段落中剩余的语句了。相比带NB的题目，信息搜索量较小。而且，用过的段落可以给予排除。这就是这种题目的基本解题思路。

雅思阅读考试高分三个黄金法则

雅思学术类阅读题中有很多种.种题型，但在解题过程中有一条贯穿始终的黄金法则，那就是学术类阅读的基本解题思路。了解了这个黄金法则就可以在雅思学术类阅读中节省时间增加效率。

雅思学术类阅读黄金法则一：分析文章后的题目

拿到一篇阅读文章，考生应该首先细读题目要求，确定哪些是关于文章结构的题目，哪些是关于文章细节的题目，同时找出题目中的中心词。

雅思学术类阅读黄金法则二：带着问题扫描文章

1.扫描标题

考生拿到一篇雅思学术类阅读文章，首先应该看一下文章的标题，而迄今为止，雅思学术类阅读理解考试中大致出现过下列三种题目类型：第一种是正规标题，可用来判断文章大意、类型、而得知文章结构;第二种是主标题加副标题，副标题有时承担揭示文章结构的重任;第三种是无标题，这种考试形式自99年开在中国考区出现，一般文章较长而且难，但仍然可以在文章第一段发现揭示文章主题的主旨句。考生应注意：描述性标题应该予以忽略;如果文章分几个SECTION论述，则SECTION的标题也应该加以注意。

2.扫描全文的分段情况及其他信息

考生应注意数字、百分比、分数、时间或货币符号出现较多的段落;引号、大写专有名词、括号及破折号出现较多的段落;斜体字、黑体字、下划线出现较多的段落。

3.扫描每个段落的首末句，把握文章主题：

主题句提示文章每段的主题含意，进而合成整个文章的大意。因此，一定要找出主题句，从而找出这一段的主题。主题句通常是一段文章的首句(当然并非永远如此)，寻找主题句的方法可按下列顺序：

首句 --→第二句 --→中间句--→末句

注意：如果首句是描述性语句则应该予以忽略

通过段落首末句判断段落主题的关键是找准中心词(KEY WORD)

中心词最可能是表示主要概念的名词，一般是句子的主语和宾语;表明状态的动词;表示程度高低、范围大孝肯定或否定的副词;中心词会在题目及原文中以同义词形式大量出现。比如：famous - prestigious;restructure delayer。

4.扫描连接上下文的信号词

5.扫描文章文章中是否有图表或示意图

这些图表一般包含了一些有关回答问题的信息，因此可以先对这些图表做一扫描，了解其内容从而加快答题速度，不然的话，就可能陷在文章中四处找寻答案而乱无头绪。但应注意，一般照片、地图、漫画可以予以忽略。

雅思学术类阅读黄金法则三：以问题为中心，通过上述扫描工作，找出文章中对应的中心词，从而定位正确答案。

这三个雅思学术类阅读黄金法则能够让大家在考试的时候不必遇到不熟悉的题型就发蒙。这三个黄金法则可以使大家的雅思阅读能力得到更快的提升。

雅思考试阅读辅导资料

FOR General Motors, a good deal of the company's recovery from its brush with bankruptcy is riding on the Chevrolet Volt (Opel or Vauxhall Ampera in Europe), its plug-in hybrid electric vehicle launched a year ago. Not that GM expects the sleek four-seater to be a cash cow. Indeed, the car company loses money on every one it makes. But the $41,000 (before tax breaks) Chevy Volt is a "halo" car designed to show the world what GM is capable of, and to lure customers into dealers' showrooms—to marvel at the vehicle's ingenious technology and its fuel economy of 60 miles per gallon (3.9litres/100km)—and then to drive off in one or other of GM's bread-and-butter models.

So, it is no surprise that GM should bend over backwards to mollify customers concerned by recent news of the Volt's lithium-ion battery catching fire following crash tests. GM is offering to loan cars to Volt owners worried about their vehicle's safety while an official investigation is underway and modifications made if deemed necessary. The company has

Even offered to buy vehicles back from owners who have lost confidence in the technology. There have not been many takers. As of December 5th, fewer than three dozen owners—out of 6,400 Volts sold to date in North America—had requested loan cars. And only a couple of dozen had asked for their Volts to be bought back. At a suitable price, your correspondent would have welcomed the chance to buy one of those secondhand buy-backs for himself, had they not already been snapped up by employees. Dan Akerson, GM's chief executive, is believed to have bought one for his wife.

The trouble all started in May, when the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) carried out a routine 20 mph (32km/h) crash test on a Volt—to simulate a sideways impact with a tree or telegraph pole followed by a rollover. Three weeks after the test, the car's 16 kilowatt-hour battery pack caught fire in NHTSA's car park, destroying the vehicle and several others nearby.

Shortly thereafter, both NHTSA and the carmaker repeated the side-impact and rollover test on at least two other cars, all to no effect. However, in subsequent tests—carried out in November by experts from the energy and defence departments as well as GM—the investigators deliberately damaged the battery packs and ruptured their coolant lines. One battery pack behaved normally. Another emitted smoke and sparks hours after it was flipped on its back. And a third exhibited a temporary increase in temperature, but then burst into flames a week later.

GM claims the initial fire in June would never have happened if the NHTSA's engineers had drained the Volt's battery immediately after the impact. It is odd that they did not. When crash testing a conventional petrol-powered car, the standard procedure is to drain the fuel tank to prevent any chance of fire. It would seem reasonable to do the equivalent with an electric vehicle.

But, then, GM did not adopt a "depowering" protocol for the Volt until after the June fire. Even when it did, it failed to share the procedure with the safety agency until embarking on the November tests. In the wake of the latest findings, GM is now working with the Society of Automotive Engineers, NHTSA and other vehicle manufacturers, as well as fire-fighters, tow-truck operators and salvage crew, to implement an industry-wide standard for handling battery-powered vehicles involved in accidents.

Toyota ran into similar troubles when its Prius hybrid car was introduced over a decade ago. Though the Prius's battery pack is considerably smaller than the Volt's, fire-fighters and other first-responders had to learn how to disarm the vehicle following an accident—by removing fuses from under the bonnet and pulling a catch beneath the rear storage area to isolate the high-voltage system. Until they had done so, they were warned, they were on no account to take a metal cutter to an overturned Prius to extricate trapped occupants. Lurking beneath the floor was a big orange cable carrying a heavy current that would have fried anyone slicing through it.

The lithium-ion cells used in the Volt's battery pack have many virtues. They are much lighter and operate at a higher voltage than other rechargeable cells—and can therefore store more energy for a given weight. In addition, they have no "memory effect" (the tendency to accept less and less charge each time they are recharged) and can also hold their charge far longer than, say, the nickel-metal hydride cells used in the Prius. For good reason, all plug-in electric vehicles, including the Nissan Leaf and the forthcoming Ford Focus Electric plus Toyota's long-awaited plug-in Prius, have embraced lithium-ion chemistry.

But lithium is a highly reactive element. If overcharged, physically damaged or allowed to get too hot, lithium-ion cells can experience thermal "runaway" and even explode—as has happened on numerous occasions with the lithium-ion batteries in laptop computers and mobile phones. Also, if allowed to drain completely, they can short-circuit and make recharging dangerous. For these reasons, all lithium-ion rechargeable batteries contain circuitry that shuts them down when their voltage rises above or falls below a certain level.

To help keep the Volt's 435lb (197kg) battery pack at the right temperature, GM designed a sophisticated thermal-management system. This is separate from the main radiator system, which cools the range-extending motor-generator (a 1.4-litre petrol engine) and feeds the car's heater. The battery pack, mounted in a T-shaped steel tray with a plastic cover, runs down the centre of the vehicle.

GM believes the Volt's battery problem was caused by malfunctioning sensors rather than chemical reactions going haywire within the cells themselves. The company is currently developing fixes to make the battery's control systems sturdier. One proposal is to laminate the electrical circuitry. Another involves beefing up the cooling lines. A third is to reinforce the tray containing the battery modules.

Outsiders note that the lithium-ion pack in the Nissan Leaf—the only other mass-produced electric car currently on sale in the United States—is encased in a rigid steel box rather than a plastic framework. The Leaf has come through its crash-testing programme with flying colours. Interestingly, its battery pack manages without any additional cooling system.

Despite GM's experience with the ground-breaking EV1 electric vehicle in the 1990s, the company still has much to learn about the public-safety issues associated with powerful batteries. For instance, both GM and NHTSA kept their mouths shut about the Volt's initial fire for the best part of six months, claiming they needed time to assess the results and to carry out further tests. Others suspect they colluded to protect the Volt's fragile sales. GM hoped to sell a modest 10,000 Volts in its first year, but will be lucky to achieve even three-quarters of its goal.

In November, when GM finally went public about the Volt's fire problems, it warned owners, dealers and first-responders of the need to drain the car's battery pack after a crash. The OnStar communications system onboard every Volt should allow the company to dispatch an engineer to drain a battery anywhere in the country within 48 hours. For its part, NHTSA has now opened a formal safety investigation into the crash-worthiness of the Volt's battery system. Meanwhile, a congressional committee that oversees NHTSA is to hold hearings early in the new year to find out why it took nearly six months for the matter to be made public, and why the committee was not kept informed.

What is left unsaid in all this is the fact that conventional cars with a tank full of petrol are far greater fire hazards than electric cars will ever be. Some 185,000 vehicles catch fire in America each year, with no fewer than 285 people dying as a consequence. But, then, people have been living with the hazard of petrol for over a century. Irrationally, electric-vehicle fires are perceived as somehow more worrisome simply because they are new.

雅思阅读搭配题的正确复习方法相关文章：

1.2020怎么开始备考BEC总结

2.雅思托福gre词汇量多少